In re E.D. CA2/5

Filed 7/26/24 In re E.D. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re E.D. et al. Persons Coming B325821 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 22CCJP03033A-B)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gabriela H. Shapiro, Judge. Dismissed. Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Jane Kwon, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

G.D. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s November 23, 2022 order declaring his two daughters (minors), born in December 2012 and July 2017 respectively, dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) based on father’s failure to protect minors from mother’s substance abuse. We dismiss father’s appeal as moot. The parties are familiar with the facts and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We accordingly resolve the cause before us, consistent with constitutional requirements, via a written opinion with reasons stated. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1261–1264 [three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s arguments”; “[i]n order to state the reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate court] need not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].) In his opening brief, father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s jurisdictional findings against him. Father does not challenge the jurisdictional findings against mother, nor does he challenge the court’s disposition orders. The sustained jurisdiction allegation states: “[Minors’ mother] has a history of alcohol abuse and prescription medication, which renders the mother incapable of providing the children with regular care and supervision. On 6/12/22, the mother used prescription medication along with alcohol in a public setting while the children were in the mother’s care